and the precedents on which it is originally founded, or by which it is chiefly illustrated and confirmed, are not within every one's reach. Hence its principles need more exposition, and its clements need more to be brought into public notice, than those laws which apply to the common concerns of social and private life. It consists properly of general rules and principles of justice, deduced from what nature and experience teach us to be right between man and man, and transferred to the larger interests of humanity,-from the cases of individuals, to the cases and concerns of nations.

What is called "positive law" differs in so many instances from the natural convictions of human reason and conscience, as to what is right, that often-times law is practically found to be not justice, but injustice. Human laws are rendered complex and voluminous, chiefly through the prevalence of artificial and unnatural systems of administration and government; and they can be simplified only in proportion to the growth of rational liberty. So the Law of Nations is complicated and confused, mainly, if not solely, in consequence of the existing and prevailing practice of war between nations. No wonder, therefore, if the Law of Nations in its present state, is, in part, injustice; its pages are stained with the blood of mankind; nay more, some parts of it are as if written in letters of blood.

The greatest obstacle in the way of the reformation of law, in general, consists in the prevalence of custom, (supported by all the prejudices which commonly attend it,) over ascertained and approved principles of justice and equity. So the principles, which ought to constitute almost all the Law of Nations, are obscured by the overwhelming mass of tyrannical, cruel, and inhuman precedents, all originating in the use of brutish force in the stead of divine truth and right reason. War, war, it is, which alone hath hindered the Law of Nations from becoming a most mighty means of reforming the laws and administrations of the whole world.

The principal reason against the reduction of the Law of Nations into a general code, stated by a modern writer on this subject, Mr. Manning, is, that the interests of nations differ from each other; and he instances the case of neutral commerce, wherein the interests of the smaller states are directly opposed to those of the great maritime powers. But, if we abolish war and standing armaments, by a series of contracts to that effect among the nations, and so make it utterly unlawful and impossible; then there can be no neutrality, because no hostile parties. By this one process, he essential rules of the Law of Nations might be so simplified, as to be contained within the limits of one convention or league, in terms capable of adoption by all nations. The same able writer, though doubting "whether any permanent good will ever result from International Codes," nevertheless asks, “Are we to despond as to any improvement in the observance of justice between nations? It is a question difficult to solve, and one which will be differently answered, according to individual temperament and experience; but I trust," says he, "that there is good ground for confidence in amelioration." He considers that "improvement in morality, though favourably affected by education, has by no means kept pace with the advance of physical invention, or general civilization;" and says that "this remark applies equally to the morality of individuals and of nations." But he justly concludes that, "By a comparison between distant periods, an inference favourable to improvement seems probable from the contrast."-Commentaries on the Law of Nations, 1839, pp. 88, 89.

The "precedents," to which I refer, are not merely the facts, but chiefly the documentary evidence of international history ;-the leagues, treaties, capitulations, pacifications, conventions, and other public acts and instruments, relative to the foreign affairs of nations. These for the most part, as collected from our own public records in the national work of Thomas Rymer, entitled the Fœdera, (but which he originally designed to entitle "Pandects of the Law of Nations,") or as contained in the great diplomatic collections published on the Continent of Europe, and in the official publications of modern times, relate far more, (in proportion) to combinations for offensive and defensive purposes, and to the transactions of military history, than to the affairs of peace, of spontaneous and hearty concord, and of true friendship, among the races and nations of mankind.

For the reformation of this branch of jurisprudence, then, I would seriously propose to you the following recommendations, which I think likely to be most effectual for the attainment of this grand object.

1. To select the best precedents, in order to form a Corpus Juris Publici, free from the objectionable matter with which the great

collections abound; to which the statesmen and jurists of a more virtuous age may refer.

2. To select from all the existing text books of public law, such sound and practical portions, as, when duly arranged, may present the rudiments or materials of a code, with the respective authorities; all which should be consistent with, and refined by the application of the great principles which we hold, namely those of inviolable Peace, of Non-intervention, and of Arbitration in the stead of War.

3. To abridge, condense, and arrange these materials, in the form and method of the celebrated Institutions of Justinian, and as nearly as possible in that neat and unadorned style; and to publish them at least in the English, the French, and the Latin languages.

4. To prepare and send to all Universities and to all Colleges of Law throughout the world, an address on the reformation of the Law of Nations, inviting all jurists to devote their attention to the improvement of this important branch of their faculty.

5. To found a Professorship of such Reformed Public Law, or at least an occasional Lecture, in every capital city and university where it may be practicable.

6. To prepare and issue little Manuals or Catechisms of the Reformed Law of Nations, fit to be put into the hands of all students of law; and to publish and illustrate its principles in an interesting and popular form, in various languages, especially English, French, German, Latin, Greek, Arabic, Sanscrit, and Chinese. A polyglot edition of such a work might be of singular attraction, and use.

7. To prepare and issue a brief harmony of the Divine Law of Revealed Religion, and the Law of Nature, with the Reformed Law of Nations, for the use of ministers of religion and theological students of every denomination professing christianity.

To execute these important purposes your standing committee, or a special committee, should be charged; and it cannot be doubted that so honourable an employment would soon attract the attention of noble minds, panting after knowledge, justice, freedom, and peace, in all parts of the civilized world.

The chief difficulty which prevents the completion of the proposed code of international law consists in the want, at present, of some definite notions of the proper constitution and practice of a Court or Courts of Nations, for the administration of this law in difficult cases, or in the breach of its principles and provisions. This is at present, and for some time must be, an open question, on which, though some valuable suggestions have been made, yet the opinions of practical men are still to be ascertained and collected. It may therefore be prudent, if not indispensable, to reserve the administrative part of the proposed code, until the best qualified jurists have expressed their sentiments on that subject. Here, fair and honourable competition is most desirable; and it will be a glorious thing to behold, in its practical results, the accomplishment of the immortal Roman orator's wish, Cedant arma togæ concedat laurea linguæ; when men's greatest as well as their smallest differences, their public rights and wrongs, shall be determined by reason and persuasion, by the power of conscience, public opinion and eloquence. Thus I have endeavoured to set before you, in as few words as possible, my thoughts on this important proposition, less interesting and attractive indeed, to a large assembly, than other more popular questions, but fraught with momentous consequences to the success and triumph of our cause, the cause of peace, justice and humanity; and therefore deserving of your earnest and serious consideration. Vote then in favour of the proposition, which, "recommends all the friends of peace to prepare public opinion in their respective countries, with a view to the formation of an authoritative code of international law," or, (as expressed in the French text of the Resolution,) "to attain to the development and amelioration of public international law.”

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

(FROM THE CÖLNISCHE ZEITUNG.)

"It is impossible !"-How many inspired orations and deeply laid plans has not this word brought to an untimely end! From the cradle to the grave we are persecuted by this categorical imperative of every-day wisdom, which too often measures the exertions of others only by the scale of its own ignorance. The natural and reasonable disinclination to set ourselves up in opposition to the views of the great majority, is changed by this formula of excommunication into a real panic-stricken state of alarm, and

it amounts to a suspicion of high treason, that of being a utopiahunter, the worst that can in these days attach to any one.

And yet seen by the light of day, the whole life of man is nothing more than a continued adoption of incredible and inexplicable things; and history, the life of the whole human race, is but a continued development of apparent impossibilities. All the great epochs of the world's history owe their importance, to one or other discovery or invention, the solution of problems which were regarded by the wisdom of antiquity as the production of an illusive fancy, or even of hell itself, as the dreams of an idealist, or the deceptions of a criminal. From those times when astronomy was driven to conceal itself under the false colours of astrology, and chemistry to hide behind the dangerous defence of the black art, down to our own days, when the windswift railway, and the almost supernatural electric telegraph, are seen acting in such close connexion with each other, how many triumphs has not the knowledge of the son celebrated over the "Impossible" of the father!

But the realization of apparent impossibilities is frequently seen in the moral as well as in the physical world. According to the principles of the ancient states, whether it were that of an elect people under the influence of hatred to the heathen, or of the Greeks and Romans, with their unrighteous contempt of "barbarians," Christianity and the validity of its principles appeared as utopian. What a distance there appears between the bloody penal laws of the middle ages, and the prison discipline of our own days; between the slaves of an Asiatic despotism, and the free citizens of England! Or, lastly, to take a totally different example, who could have conceived it possible thirty years ago, that the national hatred of the French and English, which, from the days of Agincourt to those of Toulouse and Waterloo, separated the people more effectually than the straits of Calais could do-could be changed into the friendly intercourse we now see between them? So much for the caution against the common phrase, "It is impossible"-Now for a few words on the two undertakings which have occasioned it and express it, since they were once greeted by this very cheap expression of disapproval.

This paper was among the first to take up and recommend the proposal of that wonder of this world, now proved practicable-the Exhibition of Industry, at a time when the issue, both as related to the pecuniary as well as the moral working of the undertaking was cried down by thousands and thousands as impossible. The movements of the friends of peace have here often received attention, though they were certainly not encouraging. It was only a capricious fate which determined, that the last Peace Congress should take place, when with us there was a strong warlike fermentation; while in London, exactly at the same moment, the first decisive hand was applied to the building of the great Palace of Peace. This apparent competition redounded to the injury of the Congress, for active operation ought to follow close upon the expression of opinion. This year unity of action is established, and on the 22nd of July, the English friends of peace will collect around them under the shadow of this mighty temple, their fellow-labourers from the whole world. We should support this attempt, even were it the first of the kind; so natural does it appear in the neighbourhood of the Exhibition of Industry, and so promising a consequence of it. While we see with joy the workpeople starting by thousands on their pilgrimage to London, in order that they may understand what they have executed with their own hands, and in order that the individual may not restrict his view to the small part which he has himself furnished, but may be able to take in and comprehend the scope of the complete whole; so also the Exhibition has its own high moral signification for the middle classes. And such an assembly as the Peace Congress is calculated to elucidate in its widest extent this very moral of the great peoples jubilee.

But while we express ourselves in this manner in favour of that which is so meritorious in the Congress, we also acknowledge that for Germany in general, and for Prussia in particular, the principles of the friends of peace are our only arms-debate is our only principle of election. We already hear the quiet mental reservation of the peace-loving friends of our father-land-we can understand how many a hand which has already taken up the pen, to subscribe his name to the cause, unwillingly seizes the sword. We do not wish to see Germany's participation in the Congress expounded merely from a desire to admit the horrors of war; or, as an engagement to endure patiently any kind of insult, but as a

protest against that system of government which makes an outward peace unfruitful, while discontent is nourished in the minds of the people, and the nation's material remedies are wasted. Without believing in eternal peace, surely we can protest against eternal war, which in the form of a military budget presses upon Prussia, and the small states which imitate her. What we do not wish, is the practical acknowledgment of that boys and ensigns maxim, that Prussia is a military state, for if so, it cannot by possibility be a people's state. It is said that the integrity of the states territory, and the white escutcheon of the national honour, can be preserved by this principle alone, and by the cost by which it is maintained. A state with a free constitution, and a sterling strong-hearted population, (which thank God we possess,) has in our days little to fear. Has the military state of Prussia, the battle-smoke of Bronnzell, and the blood of Schleswig-Holstein on its white escutcheon, or not? We have the soldiers to thank, not the citizen, that German history has arrived at this extremity. When Prussia is reproachfully called a "bureau-cracy," that military discipline is alluded to, which domineers over the civil administration, and in the first place condemns the individual citizens to inactivity, and then makes the individual official a machine. We have to thank the military class which will admit of no free movement, on account of its being contrary to established regulations, for the recent press and disciplinary laws, as well as for that noxious growth of youthful unsettlement, whose pretensions they would have stifled by fundamental laws and tests. Far be it from us to reproach that class which, in the battles of former ages won for itself renown, and into which thousands of young men of all conditions joyfully entered. But the view, that the army is of more importance than other classes; that between it and the prince, a closer connexion exists than between the prince and his ordinary subjects-that in fact, a state must be ruled like a regiment-may we for the sake of the future of Prussia keep far from us. Just because we know the meeting in London will be composed of men who, accustomed to better and freer institutions, will exhibit the falseness of the military class principle, as compared with that of the citizen's class, do we joyfully greet them. In sight of the great Hall of Industry, in which the weapons of war almost entirely vanish before the implements of peace it is fitting to issue the first command of progress and of freedom.

"The undersigned, on behalf of the delegates from their respective countries, to the Peace Congress that has just closed its sittings in this city, beg to express to our English associates in the Congress, our warmest gratitude for the cordial, generous, and elegant hospitality with which we have been received, and our profound sense of the obligations which the friends of peace throughout the world owe to their untiring zeal and large-hearted liberality in promoting this common cause of God and humanity. Highly as we thought before of their services, we shall carry back with us a still higher appreciation of what they have done, and what they are likely yet to do, for the spread of our principles and the accomplishment of our great philanthropic aims, not only in the wide dominions of Great Britain, but in all parts of the earth.

In the name of our brethren we bid them an affectionate, fraternal farewell, and return to our homes more deeply impressed than ever with the importance of our cause, and prepared, we trust, to labour in its behalf with increased zeal and hope.

AUG. VISSCHERS, for Belgium.
ATHANASE COQUEREL, jun., for France.
THEODOR CREIZENACH, for Germany.
GEO. C. BECKWITH, for the United States.
MARIANO CUBI I SOLER, for Spain.

No. XVI. NEW SERIES.

COVERT EXHORTATIONS TO WAR.

A FEW days before the Peace Congress assembled at Exeter Hall, a meeting was held at the Town Hall, Manchester, with a view "to promote the release of Kossuth the celebrated Hungarian leader." We need hardly say, that with the object of that meeting we do most cordially sympathize, and few things have ever afforded us more sincere joy than the tidings which have recently reached this country, that this illustrious man has been set at liberty. Nevertheless, there were sentiments uttered at that meeting, which we have read with the profoundest sorrow and regret, and on which, late as it may now seem to do so, we feel it our painful duty seriously to animadvert. These sentiments were expressed by the Rev. Dr. Vaughan, President of the Independent Lancashire College, a gentleman for whom we entertain the deepest respect; and it is precisely because we thus respect him and feel how important is the influence which from his talents, character and position, he is qualified to exercise over the public mind, that we are impelled to enter our earnest but most respectful protest against the course which he has judged it right to pursue on this and other occasions. For this is not the only instance, in which the Rev. Doctor, has employed his great ability, in what seems to our humble judgment a very mischievous direction that is in endeavouring to kindle warlike passions in the bosom of our countrymen. Dr. Vaughan, as most of our readers are aware, in addition to being President of the Lancashire College, is also the Editor of the British Quarterly Review. We cannot express too highly our estimate of the services which this able periodical has rendered to the cause of Christianity, by combining high philosophical and literary talent, with the consistent and courageous defence of evangelical truth. But in one respect, we deeply grieve to say, it appears to us to have frequently and grievously sinned against the principles and spirit of the gospel. We have read it carefully from the beginning, and our conviction is, that it is pervaded by a more belligerent tone than any one of our periodicals. We will say nothing at present of the sneers, in which the Editor and his contributors every now and then deem it wise to indulge against the Peace Society and the Peace party in this country. Neither will we dwell upon the angry and vehement sarcasms, that are poured upon the heads of those, who maintain the doctrine of non-intervention on the part of our government with the internal affairs of other nations, as if they were men of selfish, sordid, and despicable principles. But we refer more particularly to the open advocacy of war, which we have more than once noticed in this periodical. Not long since we observed, one of the writers pronouncing the most contemptuous censure upon M. de Lamartine for an act which most men have highly applauded as having saved Europe from a general war, after the last French Revolution-we mean his refusal to march a French army into Italy. Still more recently has our own government been angrily rebuked for not hazarding a war with Austria and Russia, for the liberation of Hungary.

And this brings us back to the Doctor's speech at the Manchester meeting, for it was the same sentiment that he uttered there, in the following terms :

"Sir, I have done. And yet I feel that England has been placed, Britain has been placed,-in high and momentous trust, within the last few years, for the interests of humanity. And I cannot bring myself to think, though I am not wishing to commit others to my personal views, that she has proved equal to the trust that has been committed to her. So long as the struggle was between Hungary and Austria, so long, I think, as those were belonging to one state system, it was proper we should leave them to settle these disputes among themselves. But when Russia meditated crossing the borders of Hungary, then, I think, we also might have interfered. I think we might have said to Nicholas then, "The day on which you cross the Hungarian border, is the day in which we shall feel ourselves called upon to give commission to our fleets to block up your ports; and to do all that we can, until you desist from a course of that nature." Had there been in us the bold, the strong, the wise heart, to have fitted us for saying that, my solemn conviction is, that then Hungarian liberty would have been saved, Russian ambition would have received the check it so greatly needs: Austria would have been compelled to keep her sway within the limits more befitting her pretensions; Turkey would not have been humbled as she has been; Germany would not have been converted into a mere barrackyard for soldiers; and the Italy upon which we now look, would not be the Italy then existing."

And in a second speech called forth by a manly and outspoken protest on the part of Dr. Beard, against the warlike tone of his first remarks, Dr. Vaughan expresses himself thus:

"It is well to appeal to principle, and right, and so on, when you have to do with a state that is sensible to impressions of that sort. My maxim is this: Down with the power of bad men; down with it by mild means to the utmost extent in which mild means may avail; if you must come to something rougher, let it come; and if at last the roughest of all must come, why let the roughest of all come. He had no doubt that there were many mercantile men in Manchester and Lancashire, who looked with a very becoming dread upon war: very properly; and yet he wished to say that he knew some of that class of men, and had known some of them in whose case a war would be pre-eminently disastrous; and yet they were men who, if a war had been declared at the time of which he had spoken, would have said, 'It is a right thing, and if we suffer for it, to suffer for what is right is a thing we should be ready to do.'

Now the plain meaning of all this, if it has any meaning beyond a little rhetorical bravado, is, that England ought unhesitatingly to have rushed into war with Russia on the behalf of Hungary. It is true the orator expresses his confident belief that the mere threat of war, would have sufficed to deter that power, from its menaced invasion. Many men quite as

well conversant with the policy and resources of Russia, as Dr. Vaughan, as confidently believe that the result would have been different. We admit that it might have been as he anticipated. But has he duly reflected how much is involved in the alternative? What if Russia had refused to succumb to our high handed menaces? What then? Why then WAR, fierce, long, and bloody, a war in which beyond all doubt, sooner or later all Europe would become implicated, and the horrors or consequences of which no eye but God's could foresee. And what is it to go to war in the present condition of the world? It is to kindle in the heart of commerce, civilization, and Christianity, the fiercest flames of malignant and vindictive passions, which would "burn to the lowest hell!" It is to consign myriads of human beings to a bloody and premature grave! It is to spread among thousands of domestic circles an untold and unimaginable amount of agony! It is to let loose a deluge of vice and immorality to inundate the nations! It is to derange commerce, to destroy credit, to stop manufactures, to arrest the peaceful progress of mankind in all useful and civilizing arts! It is to commit the decision of great principles to the blind and brutal arbitrament of the sword! Did Dr. Vaughan fairly look at the hideous phantom he was trying to evoke by his eloquent incantations? Let him examine it well, as it looms murkily through the cloud of blood in which it is enveloped. "Black it stands as night,

Fierce as ten furies, terrible as hell."

And is it a slight responsibility which any man assumes, who takes upon him to stimulate a nation or a government, to let loose this fury upon the world!

The defence urged for all this fierce talk, is the love of liberty. Now we presume to say, that we love liberty no less than Dr. Vaughan. We know of no conceivable reason that he and those who side with him in this matter, can have to liberty that we do not also feel. But we utterly and confidently deny that the cause of genuine freedom, can be truly and permanently advantaged by war. They are as opposed as light and darkness. War is violence, fury, injustice, and unreason. Freedom rests on an appeal to equity and right. War begins by reducing men into the most abject of all forms of slavery, for the soldier is a slave not only in body, but in mind and conscience. It accomplishes its objects by the most open contempt of all the principles of law, morality and right, on which freedom professes to found its claim. It conducts almost invariably to the most absolute and despicable subjection, even of those whom it pretends to liberate to the power of the sword. And how can liberty come out of that!

We have much more to say on this subject. But we must now content ourselves with these few and hasty remarks, which we can assure Dr. Vaughan, should he condescend to look at these humble pages, we have penned far more in sorrow than in anger. We cannot however close, without expressing our high admiration of the noble stand made by Dr. Beard and Dr. Watts, at the meeting in question, on behalf of Peace principles. We know not, to what religious body those gentlemen belong. We only know that they represented the spirit of Christianity more worthily on that occasion, than those who would " cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war."

The following extract from Dr. Beard's speech appears to us altogether excellent :-"They could not deny that Hungary had fallen. He was not about to do so foolish a thing as to interpret the wisdom of the counsel by the result of the effort; but fallen Hungary now was— -('For a time'); and could it have been in a worse condition had it never appealed to arms? Might it not have been in a far better position had it contented itself, and had other peoples on the continent contented themselves, with an appeal to the great powers which had been tried in Ireland and in England,- the power of passive resistance? His own opinion was that Hungary, in taking up arms,

gave

the advantage to the enemy; that in all cases those who had a good cause in their hands, gave the advantage to the enemy by taking up arms. Unfortunately in this world. brute force far outweighed intellectual culture; and the evil principle in this world was still very strong indeed, not to say stronger than the good principle. Unfortunately it was possible for powers like Russia and Austria to overwhelm a few noble, brave, virtuous men like the Hungarians, by their hordes of brute force. But he would submit that we, in this country, had something to say on this point not unworthy of attention. During the last fifty years we had passed through a most important period; through many difficulties; through difficulties, perhaps, greater than those which any nation ever had to encounter. At the beginning of the century what evils were there both in church and state, and how near, in many instances, were the people rising in what they might consider their force, but which would, he believed, have proved their weakness, and assailing the powers that were by physical violence. They did not; and where now were we? and what had we done? We had worked out a great moral revolution. We had effected one of the greatest changes that ever took place in society. Very different, he believed, would have been the result had Britons taken up arms one against the other, and opposed the governments of the respective periods."

THE PROGRESS OF PEACE PRINCIPLES IN GERMANY. WE return, according to our promise, to the valuable pamphlet of Dr. Spiess noticed in our last, the main object of which is to recommend the formation of Peace Societies throughout Germany. In urging this measure on his countrymen, we rejoice exceedingly to observe that the author lays down a principle, the practical recognition of which would, we sincerely believe, confer a richer advantage upon the continental nations than all the mere political reforms which they have acquired, or may hope for the future to acquire. Certainly," says Dr. Spiess, "in our time no one would wish to deny the mighty influence of well-conducted associations. In a time when nobody expects, or can wisely and confidently expect to gain from the superior governments all that a people require, when, on the contrary, it is necessary that they put their own hand to the work, in order to form and bring into existence, in co-operation with the Government, those institutions which the commonwealth demands, and to work actively by help of these institutions for the good of the whole as well as of individuals, associations must be formed for the most different ends, for it is only by co-operation that the individual can exercise his strength with any effect." We have a firm conviction, the result of considerable observation both in France and Germany, that one of the severest calamities which afflicts the people of both these countries, is the unfortunate habit they have acquired, of looking to their Governments to do everything for them. It paralyses all self-reliance and self-help, engenders absurd and extravagant expectations, which, when they are disappointed, turn to bitter political disaffection. We believe it would be an unspeakable benefit both to the people and to the rulers, if the former would learn, and the latter permit them to learn, the secret of peaceably combining for the accomplishment of great, social, and moral objects. We do not of course advert to those miserable secret societies, which are nothing better than political conspiracies for purposes of violence and blood, and which bring the whole principle of association into disrepute. But we mean societies of men uniting together, as the Welsh say, "Yn ngolau'r haul a llygad goleuni" (in the light of the sun and in the eye of day), for the purpose of advancing the great interests of man and society, not directly or mainly by political or governmental action, but by the diffusion of truth, the organisation of social benevolence, and the force of public opinion; such societies, in short, as are so common in England, and unhappily so rare in France and Germany.

But to return to the pamphlet before us. In sustaining the plan he proposes, Dr. Spiess is naturally led to examine and refute the objections most commonly urged by his countrymen against the Peace movement. This he does with great wisdom, tact, and temper, maintaining his own views with sufficient firmness, but in a tone so respectful and conciliatory, that none can be offended

even though they should not be convinced. Very admirable we think is his answer to the cavil so frequently in the mouth of those who oppose the friends of Peace, that they are pursuing an object the full accomplishment of which, however desirable, is beyond their reach. After showing that this class of persons are not mere visionary dreamers, as they are sometimes accused of being, but that they propose definite and practical measures, he adds, "No objection surely can be grounded on the fact, that their eyes are constantly directed to a high, distant, and perhaps unattainable object. Is it not also a moral command which has gone forth to all men, to strive after inward holiness and resemblance to God? And who would despise or condemn this striving as Utopian and visionary, because not only experience but reason itself teaches us that the object of such endeavours can never be perfectly attained? But as each step in the way towards it cannot be sufficiently prized as a gain to the individual, so is every step towards universal peace, a gain for humanity."

We should like to have given several other extracts, which we had marked, from Dr. Spiess's argument, but we must content ourselves with the following quotation, in which he deals with the special objection employed by Germans against joining in the Peace movement, arising from the peculiar political condition of their country. We have encountered the same kind of reasoning ourselves, while conversing with intelligent Germans, but it has always struck us as one of the most singular kind that we have ever had the lot to meet. It is grounded on the present disunited condition of Germany, broken up into so many states and parties and interests, the only remedy for which, the objectors say, is a good sharp war, by which they appear to mean, not a war of foreign aggression or conquest, but a war among themselves. That is, they propose to evoke all the most violent passions of the people, and carry fire and sword into each other's dominions, to mingle in mutual carnage and destruction, by way of healing the divisions of Germany, and promoting a great national confederation, by which the whole Teutonic race shall be converted into one! Never surely did there proceed from any human brain so extraordinary a prescription for a cordial and brotherly union as a general war!

"But we hear it objected, 'one may in the United States of North America, in England, and even in France, preach the principles of permanent peace, that is, in states well defined, strong, and united, and in such as are politically free, and which are therefore acknowledged and respected from without, and have only to consider how they may promote their internal welfare. But all things do not suit all cases, and what may be right and advantageous for those states is not on that account proper for Germany, that in its internal relations is torn asunder and disunited, and in its foreign relation is weak and unrespected, striving in vain for deliverance from inward bondage as well as outward guardianship. Only an active war,' we hear it maintained, 'can help us poor Germans out of our sorrowful condition; by a stout contest, in which we must put forth all our strength, can we gain respect abroad, and then we can easily set ourselves free from our inward enemies.' And we hear the friends and advocates of Peace reviled, not only as unpatriotic weaklings but as traitors to their fatherland, for it has been discovered that the whole of this English peace movement is only a concerted trick of 'perfidious Albion,' with a view by this means to hold the whole of the continent, and especially Germany, for ever in the same state of weakness in which it has been up to this time, in order the better to draw profit from it for England's own advantage, just as on similar grounds, the free trade movement has been regarded as an intrigue which is to check and annihilate the industrial progress of Germany.

"It is necessary seriously to combat such views? It is indeed a melancholy truth, that Germany possesses neither the consideration-nor the power abroad, which is proportioned to its size and its degree of development, nor does it enjoy that inward freedom and prosperity to which other nations of far less capability and cultivation have attained. But is this because we have not been warlike enough? Has Germany ever been deficient in numerous and powerful armies, in well-defended fortresses, or efficient war-materials? Or have shining victories been wanting in its history? No indeed! But we have ever failed in union and oneness, and union alone gives inward strength, and only inward strength gives influence and consideration abroad. And can a war, be it the most just, and conducted with the most generous enthusiasm, ever help us Germans to permanent unity? Let us recollect the so-called wars of freedom in 1813 and 1815. How united and strong all the German races then stood together, what a high enthusiasm for a powerful and undivided Germany ran through all the vallies of our fatherland, as long as it was only a question of shaking off the oppressive foreign rule; and how shamefully did we become the prey of the most petty individual interests of German princes and races, and of hostile intrigues from abroad as soon as this end was gained!

"The most mournful period of humiliation followed close after the splendid victories of the war of freedom in Germany; robbed of united guidance, it sank down worse than ever, the helpless sport of foreign powers, while it was ruled within only by political caprice! Or is it believed, that in the event of a general war now, some German prince might succeed in remedying the disjointed condition of Germany by setting himself up as its single ruler! Vain delusion! The times are long gone by when political unity might be arrived at by such means. So indeed did France and England at an earlier period arrive at simple monarchy. But in these days and with us the individual political elements are far too much developed to admit of their being with equal facility fused and united by external compulsion. A true and therefore permanent union can only be grounded on the pursuit of great and enduring interests, material as well as spiritual, and such interests a people can never find in mere transitory resistance of hostile attacks, whether they come from without or from within, consequently neither in external wars nor in internal revolutions, but only in its own inward and peaceful development. "And would it be easier by means of a war to gain the internal political freedom for which an immense majority of the Germans so devoutly long? At the close of last year we had the melancholy example, that while two enormous armies, in the heart of Germany, stood ready arrayed against each other, it was precisely those who most decidedly wished for a battle, and blew the trumpet most loudly who had formerly given the most numerous proofs, that it was only national freedom and the lawful development of the rights of the peoples that they sought. We do not doubt indeed, that in acting thus, these warm adherents of true constitutional freedom and lawful reform cherished the best institutions, and that it was only a high enthusiasm for the honour and independence as well as the freedom of Germany, and the sorrow they felt at having failed both in St. Paul's Church at Frankfort, and at Erfurt, in giving to Germany a uniting and free constitution, that filled them with such a desire for war. But nevertheless we cannot avoid feeling, that never was this constitutional party more untrue to its own principles than when they hoped to gain freedom and independence for Germany by war, above all, by a war between German races so closely connected as brethren. The development of our relations at that time has had on all sides a too unfortunate issue, and the deep sorrow on account of it is yet too fresh and vivid that we should take any pleasure in lingering over it; but we may yet do well to remember, that one only possesses that freedom truly and permanently that has been gained by one's own exertions, and that only a complete distrust of our own strength could lead to the vain hope that we could win the freedom which our own weakness and our unfavourable circumstances had not enabled us to acquire for ourselves, through foreign aid, or still more through the accidents of a perhaps interminable With perfect right then have the friends of Peace in England, who are the true and firm supporters of constitutional freedom, turned the events of last year to account, in order to illustrate the rectitude of their own principles, and the error of those who hope from war the establishment or the increase of political liberty, and we cannot avoid quoting, word for word, an appropriate passage from the Herald of Peace, the organ of the Peace Society in England."

war.

Then follows an extract from an article on Germany, which appeared in this periodical for January last.

We must now take our leave of Dr. Spiess with many thanks for his admirable pamphlet, which, we trust, will have the effect of turning the attention of his countrymen, in a practical form, towards the great cause of permanent and universal Peace.

THE SCOFFERS.

(To the Editor of The Herald of Peace.)

DEAR SIR,-Under the very fascinating and elegant title of "Whole Hogs," the Editor of Household Words, in the number for the 23rd August, has published an article which ought not to be permitted to go unanswered. It is what may be called a smart article; but like many other smart things, it has only its smartness to recommend it; and even that is extremely questionable. Its object is to decry and to bring into contempt the Temperance and Peace movements, taking advantage of the same opportunity to have a say, also, against the notions of the Vegetarians. It seeks to bring ridicule on those who advocate Total Abstinence, and what are called extreme Peace doctrines, giving them the name of "Whole Hogs," without, however, attempting to substitute even the half of any other animal to do what these "Whole Hogs" will most assuredly do some day; and that day no distant one. Referring to the recent Peace and Total Abstinence demonstration, this facetious writer remarks-"The transactions, such as they have been, have been exclusively for 'Whole Hogs.' Those who may have had only a retail inclination for sides, ribs, limbs, cheeks, faces, trotters, snout, ears, or tail, have been required to take the Whole Hog, sinking none of the offal, but consenting to it all-and a good deal of it too." The readers